[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Sascha,

On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 11:29 +0000, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote:
> >This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4
> >for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4
> >resellers who in turn can protect their prices.
> 
> I can't actually see that. The proposal doesn't move the
> goalposts for a new LIR at all, assuming that a new business
> would want to hang on to their ipv4 space for at least two years.
> It doesn't even prevent them from creating >1 LIR if they need
> more than 1024 addresses - as long as each "LIR" hangs on to
> theirs for 2 years.

Right.  I re-compiled the proposal text and read it in full. 

>  The only difficulty is in creating multiple
> LIRS and then immediately merging them (and that issue has been
> raised)

Which sometimes would be convenient.  Holding on to multiple LIRs rather
than one does have an effect in higher TCO of IPv4 from RIPE NCC.

But seeing as the proposal doesn't actually affect multiple-LIR
solutions, my opposition is a bit decreased -- however I still believe
we're all best served by just getting this s**t over with.  It's akin to
removing a patch from the skin, just rip it off and deal with it. 

/M
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/49ed3dc1/attachment.sig>